Above a certain point, say around 80% of the total comp most employees get, the ground rules start to subtlety change. Getting results in the middle (or below) of your peer pack will no longer just mean you don't get a raise or bonus. The mantra becomes "Up or Out."
The problem is if that's your sweet spot, people perceive that and try to push you up. It's like making it look easy to do super well is unacceptable and you must be repositioned until you struggle more.
Personally, I don't think this is true as companies or people think it is.
On a slightly different note, from my experience, companies who pay less actually expect just as much if not more than companies who pay competitively.
If you’re senior but at the bottom of the senior band, and you’re mostly “at expectations” for your level but maybe “slightly below” in 1-2 categories, you’ll probably still net out at “meets” with a normal raise. If you’re senior but the highest paid senior - that’s probably going to net out at “below” overall, or zero-to-small raise.
Companies that dramatically underpay are often out of touch. So naturally they expect more effort than their already out of touch compensation would indicate.
But in companies with competitive comp, you almost certainly will be expected to meet a higher bar after negotiating a higher salary.
Once you argue for a higher salary than "the other guy" the implication is you can deliver more value. People don't just forget that on your start date.
Overdelivering on expectations often just means be better than the rest of the company.
Most companies don't operate on global skill levels.
Are execs the most productive people at the company? They can be. They have a whole org attached to them so they can multiply their efforts through others. That’s one thing. Then there is the fact they I see execs consistently putting in way more hours to deliver on promises and responsibilities.
I realize this isn’t always the case but high performers in top positions do exist. It’s seeing the required levels of dedication that actually made me decide not to pursue a career like that. It would exhaust me. I’m fine playing second fiddle. Not third, maybe, but second is fine.
.
People look for a job because they most likely need one; unless they are in the fortunate position of working for fun and they don’t want to retire just yet.
Negotiating means you should be ready to walk away: let’s be honest … how many with their first offer at their dream job (e.g: FAANG) would be ready to walk away from it?
Unless you have very specific skills and knowledge, you are rarely in the position of bumping the numbers much.
That said, you must negotiate the first offer (usually low), then you counteroffer much higher with the goal of usually settle somewhere in the middle.
Recruiters know how to play the game.
Also, I believe everyone should have a good idea on how much they should be paid. I usually give the first number, if asked (high) I don’t see anything wrong with that.
I already know they will lowball me and then we will settle somewhere halfway.
It also gives you the psychological safety to be more aggressive in your negotiation.
of course, the issue then becomes why settle for only ~1% of the value you produce as a salary?
That’s how you get the leverage back at the table.
And if you like your current company you talk to your employer about the oh so much better job offers you got. With real job offers, or they come with a better offer or in the worst case you will end up in a better company with a better salary, perks, tech stack, etc…
First and foremost there are many times when leverage is not on the employers side, today it often is not as there are more open jobs than people to fill them. Given the current population decline this trend will likely continue unless we see massive reduction in the number of employers.
Then there is the assumption that the dream job is working at a FAANG company. Many people, myself included, avoid large companies like the plague. Even if a large public company wanted to pay me 2x what I make now I would infact turn that down.
Finally there are multiple studies that show there is a wage curve which in today's dollars any salary above around 80-90K (average US COL, Adjust where needed for high COL regions) there is a reduction in how much the base salary factors into job choice. Instead other things start to play larger factors in the choice to accept an offer.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Ubuntu/comments/oiqbt/ask_rubuntu_h...
"all coworkers i've talked to who are comfortable with talking about salaries have said canonical is their highest paying gig to date. each employee salary is negotiated and some have a lot more perks than others. without going into any detail canonical provided a significant salary bump over my previous position."
> Have a hiring manager talk with you, specifically, about an opening that they want you, specifically, to fill.
How do you get into that position, should you constantly market yourself, or how did you do it ?
That said, I'm not sure it helped with _salary_ that much (I had considerably better offers in hand), but it was a great fit for both the company and myself, so I went with it.
This can lead to people offering you positions that aren't publicly posted, because via your engagement they feel they understand you enough that you should be able to fill the role they have in mind.
For example - I write 20 blog posts going in depth on some topic - there's a decent chance I may actually know that topic. When that skill set becomes critical to someone - the odds are higher they'll contact me for that skill set because chances are, I'll be top of mind through sheer volume or quality of information I have written about that skill.
Also, read some damn negotiation books. No, I'm not going to link them here for you because unless you decide this is something you want to learn about and track them down yourself, you don't value them. I learned by collecting the syllabi of a bunch of ivy league school courses on negotiation and then reading the common books. I like to say I didn't recieve an education in this so much as I stole it, so I don't have the prestige, but that's just the part that isn't worth anything. That's just the very beginning of the knowledge you are across the table from if you haven't read any books.
You can't collaborate, cooperate, align or choose freely in any situation unless you have done so with the knowledgable consent to what you are willing to do and not do. Further, you cannot be considered a peer or equal to anyone who you have not actively decided how to relate to based on a negotiation of your respective interests. I hear "but, X people aren't good negotiators because Y," to which I call bullshit. If their survival strategy has been based on acquiescing and being agreeable on the way in and then reneging or turning on people once they gain some leverage, the only thing they are not-good at is negotiating in good faith. It is the one thing that all people capable of language and cognition are almost equally equipped to do, and it divides people who take responsibility for themselves from the careless. It's a moral competence.
It also changes how you relate to the world. It can effect your relationships when suddenly you take your own health and interests into consideration and begin to express and satisfy them, so test slowly. That said, find some books and read them, they change peoples lives.
Seriously, get on linked in, splash your resume around to headhunters, post about stuff on the internet and get noticed. I call it "Job Fishing" because it's very similar to actual fishing. There are lots of ways to get a job, but if you can get someone else to negotiate for you, your chances of making more money than you would have on your own go up substantially.
